... in that the War between the States was a "science fiction" war. Of course, almost every war is that.
So - I gather that the Skiffys will be going back in time to the 1860's or thereabouts, eh?
Might be interesting - especially since Orientals were typically not that well accepted back then. And there were virtually NO Japanese ...
RwP
Harry Turtledove was RIGHT!
-
Tom the Fanboy
- Cartoon Hero
- Posts: 2250
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Beaverton, OR, USA
- Contact:
T you DOG!
You get us all thinking about the FANS dividing and here you go throwing us into THE Civil War (no offense to "foreigners").
Yet again! I can't believe that no one guessed this. Oh well, it just goes to show that by us guessing right, we drive T to better complications!
The asian factor is good. I think the Professor will have something planned for this. I'm sure that Will is going to love this though. Even if it's war (which we all know he hates) it will be like a giant reinactment cos play!
Hey....I can't read the map but is that a 19th century Billberg I see?
You get us all thinking about the FANS dividing and here you go throwing us into THE Civil War (no offense to "foreigners").
Yet again! I can't believe that no one guessed this. Oh well, it just goes to show that by us guessing right, we drive T to better complications!
The asian factor is good. I think the Professor will have something planned for this. I'm sure that Will is going to love this though. Even if it's war (which we all know he hates) it will be like a giant reinactment cos play!
Hey....I can't read the map but is that a 19th century Billberg I see?
Tom the Fanboy
Enthusiasm over Accuracy!
"You should totally put that in your signature Tom. You drain 1d10 investigators per round." -Dustman
Enthusiasm over Accuracy!
"You should totally put that in your signature Tom. You drain 1d10 investigators per round." -Dustman
-
KingLeon
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Tropical-Heat Buffalo
- Contact:
No Buffalo, eh? We were a pretty major city back then... The Erie Canal made us a major gateway for trade...
You know what I just realized?
NOW we've got a valid excuse to see the Fans in authentic eighteenth century clothing! Woohoo! Yeah! Cool!
(people stare blankly at KL)
What? You people don't visit the Historical Society building much at yer County Fair?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: KingLeon on 2002-04-16 19:18 ]</font>
You know what I just realized?
NOW we've got a valid excuse to see the Fans in authentic eighteenth century clothing! Woohoo! Yeah! Cool!
(people stare blankly at KL)
What? You people don't visit the Historical Society building much at yer County Fair?
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: KingLeon on 2002-04-16 19:18 ]</font>
-
Drooling Fan Girl
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 533
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Interesting.
I'm from the MidSouth. That's MS/TN/AR to y'all. I've grown up all my life never more than an hour from SOME Civil War battlefield. The entire region that I consider "home" was collectively guilty of treason, once upon a time. The "Radical Reconstruction" the South underwent has shaped this area, and yes, even my life, these hundred and forty years later.
As I write this, I'm wearing an "Ole Miss" baseball cap; Ole Miss is the University of Mississippi where I went to school, and it was a University back then as well; the Yankees camped in The Grove, burned the town, but didn't burn the University out of respect. Ole Miss is also where there were riots (mostly out-of-towners) when James Merideth came to study there. There are still bulletholes in the columns of The Lyceum. I'm proud to say things are much better now.
To me, the Confederate Flag isn't about hate, but about heritage; a unique region with customs and history (some good, some bad) that are unique to it. But I understand those who feel the Confederate Flag is about hate; one of my classmates at Ole Miss (she was an older lady) was a little girl when her uncle was lynched and his body dumped back on the lawn wrapped in a confederate flag. (Note my lack of capitilization... I can't bring myself to do it due to the circumstances).
I acknowledge the ills that plagued the Antebellum South, and am glad that the slaves were freed. Just remember that slavery made a really good "spin" to put on the war (like "Free Kuwait" and never mind all the oil...) And just as the Iraqis felt they had a legitimate historical claim to Kuwait, the States came into the Union *voluntariliy*, and when the Federal government started passing some really disadvantageous laws for them, they figured they could *LEAVE voluntarily. It *seemed* logical enough, but the Constitution didn't say, so we fought a war over it, and now the question is settled.
Comments?
Loxley
I'm from the MidSouth. That's MS/TN/AR to y'all. I've grown up all my life never more than an hour from SOME Civil War battlefield. The entire region that I consider "home" was collectively guilty of treason, once upon a time. The "Radical Reconstruction" the South underwent has shaped this area, and yes, even my life, these hundred and forty years later.
As I write this, I'm wearing an "Ole Miss" baseball cap; Ole Miss is the University of Mississippi where I went to school, and it was a University back then as well; the Yankees camped in The Grove, burned the town, but didn't burn the University out of respect. Ole Miss is also where there were riots (mostly out-of-towners) when James Merideth came to study there. There are still bulletholes in the columns of The Lyceum. I'm proud to say things are much better now.
To me, the Confederate Flag isn't about hate, but about heritage; a unique region with customs and history (some good, some bad) that are unique to it. But I understand those who feel the Confederate Flag is about hate; one of my classmates at Ole Miss (she was an older lady) was a little girl when her uncle was lynched and his body dumped back on the lawn wrapped in a confederate flag. (Note my lack of capitilization... I can't bring myself to do it due to the circumstances).
I acknowledge the ills that plagued the Antebellum South, and am glad that the slaves were freed. Just remember that slavery made a really good "spin" to put on the war (like "Free Kuwait" and never mind all the oil...) And just as the Iraqis felt they had a legitimate historical claim to Kuwait, the States came into the Union *voluntariliy*, and when the Federal government started passing some really disadvantageous laws for them, they figured they could *LEAVE voluntarily. It *seemed* logical enough, but the Constitution didn't say, so we fought a war over it, and now the question is settled.
Comments?
Loxley
-
FrustratedPilot
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 819
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Jefferson City,TN U.S.A.
- Contact:
The wars whose battlefields were near where I grew up were the French and Indian Wars, the Revolution, the War of 1812 and the various Indian/Settler conflicts before, after and in between. Until I moved south of the Mason/Dixon, there were only two meanings of the Confederate Battle Flag--the KKK and the orange racer General Lee of <i>Dukes of Hazzard</i>.
Of course, with a surname like mine you'd presume more sympathy for the Union cause of the War of Northern Agression. And you'd mostly be right.
Of course, with a surname like mine you'd presume more sympathy for the Union cause of the War of Northern Agression. And you'd mostly be right.
-
Maccabee
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth, VA, United States
Welcome to the boards, Ralph.On 2002-04-16 18:25, ralphp1024 wrote:
... in that the War between the States was a "science fiction" war. Of course, almost every war is that.
Calling the "Late Unpleasantness" the "War Between the States" is a pet peeve of mine. It implies political and geographical divisions more clearcut than you actually had.
In fact, 14 states supplied regiments to both sides (16 if you count West Virginia and Oklahoma, which were not yet states in 1861), 6 had rival state governments (7, if you count West Virginia), 5 were represented in the Congresses of both sides (6 if you count WV), both sides accepted troops from "enemy" states.
"War Between the States" also implicitly accepts one of the central Confederate justifications for secession, i.e. that states can make independent decisions on issues like levying war.
I prefer more neutral and accurate terms like "The American Civil War" or "The War of the Rebellion" -- or the not-at-all neutral "The Slavedrivers' Uprising," which I only use when someone mentions "The War of Northern Agression."
Loxley, I thank you for sharing your personal experiences.
As to the legality of secession, I felt that since the union wasn't created unilaterally (it took 2/3 of the states to put the Constitution into effect) and its nature couldn't be changed unilaterally (it requires approval of 3/4 of the states to change the Constitution) it couldn't be broken up unilaterally either. Besides, the south didn't take the matter to the Supreme Court, which was evenly divided at the time (it had been 5-4 south, but Justice Daniel of Virginia died in 1860 and had not yet been replaced).
As for laws disadvantageous to the south, to what laws are you referring?
Maccabee
_________________
Risus est telum ultimum contra tyrranem. Nullus dictator exercitibus allibus ridiculem vulgi longe resistare potest.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Maccabee on 2002-04-16 20:48 ]</font>
-
Backslider
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Athens, GA
- Contact:
Sorry for the length of this, but...
I grew up in Mississippi, about 60 miles east of Oxford, actually, in Itawamba County. As a matter of fact, my high school played Oxford in various athletic competitions, more often than not getting our rears handed to us. I currently live in Athens, Georgia, and the Civil War, slavery, the Civil Rights movement, and the repercussions of all three have always been a part of my life. It's a part of anybody's life in the South. Much like a petulant child who breaks an expensive vase, it's something we're not allowed to forget. We were bad, naughty us. Of course, history books never talk about how bad the North treated its working class, particularly immigrants, during this time, nicely glossing over labor riots, unsafe working conditions in factories and conscription when telling us how evil and dastardly all those Southern slave owners were. Of course, history is written by the winners, and heaven forbid the Leaders Of Industry be cast in a bad light.
Now, that being said, was the South fighting for a noble cause? No, not really. The young men who died for the Confederacy, whatever they were told, were fighting to keep in place a certain "way of life," i.e. one that would keep the landed aristocracy on top of the food chain. In other words as it usually happens, the rich man sends the poor man off to die for his money. Same thing in the North; rich people didn't fight, they didn't die.
The Civil War was only nominally about slavery and freeing the slaves. Only a few souls, such as Horace Greeley, gave a damn about the slaves one way or another. In fact, during the dark days of the war, when the tied was in the South's favor, the most dangerous place a black man could be was in New York City or Boston. The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda tool; hell, it only freed slaves in Confederate areas - a place where it can be argued the Federal government had no say - and didn't touch those in bondage in Union territory like Maryland, New Orleans or Eastern Tennessee.
That's one of the big lies we're taught in school concerning the Civil War and its repercussions. The other is that the Stars and Bars is all about heritage. It's not; it's about rebellion and hate. The familiar "Southern" flag wasn't the national symbol for the Confederacy; it was only the battle flag for Gen. Robert E. Lee and only represented the entire Confederate Army when Lee was made commander-in-chief of the whole shebang in early 1865.
As a matter of fact, it was pretty much forgotten until the '40s and '50s when the Civil Rights movement kicked into gear. The Klan adopted it as a symbol and Southern states added it to their state flags and courthouse squares. The exception is Mississippi, which added the Stars & Bars to the state flag in 1890, but we've always been an odd bunch. So, if that's the "heritage" you wish to honor, go right ahead.
Me, I think the argument over the flag is a stupid issue. All that time, energy, passion and money wasted on a symbol, when we could direct that time, energy, passion and money towards more important things, such as literacy, better jobs, health care for every American and a better standard of living for everyone - not just those who can afford to buy their local representative - we can make this country the non-stop rock 'n' roll party it should be. Mississippi recently held a statewide vote over whether or not to get rid of the Stars & Bars; it failed - and amusingly enough, voting fell along economic and social lines rather than racial lines - but I wonder...there's spots in the Mississippi Delta where one could drive 100 miles in any direction and not see a doctor. Maybe that's what we should get all hot and bothered about, or am I just a silly idealist?
But people will continue to fight for the flag and hold onto antiquated ideals because that's what people do. Southerners in particular, mainly because we're a prickly bunch and HATE being told what to do. Me, I say leave it up or take it down, it doesn't really matter in the long run. It's just a symbol; a symbol of hate and the power of one group over another, true, but a symbol nevertheless. People who fight for symbols - and I'm including any and all symbols here - are only superceded in stupidity by those who would kill and die for those symbols. And as far as any and all wars go, just remember to look at who's telling you to fight and die for whatever reason and where they sit when the blood starts to pour.
Take care,
Matt
I don't know his mind, but I'm assuming he's referring to a few import/export laws and tariffs that would've/were hurting the South's cotton-based economy but were advantageous to the industrial North. That's part of the reason behind the Civil War, but the main part is that Americans, being the bloodthirsty critters that we are, hadn't had a good war in a few years and were itching to kill somebody. Wiping out the indigenous population just didn't have the oomph it once did.As for laws disadvantageous to the south, to what laws are you referring?
I grew up in Mississippi, about 60 miles east of Oxford, actually, in Itawamba County. As a matter of fact, my high school played Oxford in various athletic competitions, more often than not getting our rears handed to us. I currently live in Athens, Georgia, and the Civil War, slavery, the Civil Rights movement, and the repercussions of all three have always been a part of my life. It's a part of anybody's life in the South. Much like a petulant child who breaks an expensive vase, it's something we're not allowed to forget. We were bad, naughty us. Of course, history books never talk about how bad the North treated its working class, particularly immigrants, during this time, nicely glossing over labor riots, unsafe working conditions in factories and conscription when telling us how evil and dastardly all those Southern slave owners were. Of course, history is written by the winners, and heaven forbid the Leaders Of Industry be cast in a bad light.
Now, that being said, was the South fighting for a noble cause? No, not really. The young men who died for the Confederacy, whatever they were told, were fighting to keep in place a certain "way of life," i.e. one that would keep the landed aristocracy on top of the food chain. In other words as it usually happens, the rich man sends the poor man off to die for his money. Same thing in the North; rich people didn't fight, they didn't die.
The Civil War was only nominally about slavery and freeing the slaves. Only a few souls, such as Horace Greeley, gave a damn about the slaves one way or another. In fact, during the dark days of the war, when the tied was in the South's favor, the most dangerous place a black man could be was in New York City or Boston. The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda tool; hell, it only freed slaves in Confederate areas - a place where it can be argued the Federal government had no say - and didn't touch those in bondage in Union territory like Maryland, New Orleans or Eastern Tennessee.
That's one of the big lies we're taught in school concerning the Civil War and its repercussions. The other is that the Stars and Bars is all about heritage. It's not; it's about rebellion and hate. The familiar "Southern" flag wasn't the national symbol for the Confederacy; it was only the battle flag for Gen. Robert E. Lee and only represented the entire Confederate Army when Lee was made commander-in-chief of the whole shebang in early 1865.
As a matter of fact, it was pretty much forgotten until the '40s and '50s when the Civil Rights movement kicked into gear. The Klan adopted it as a symbol and Southern states added it to their state flags and courthouse squares. The exception is Mississippi, which added the Stars & Bars to the state flag in 1890, but we've always been an odd bunch. So, if that's the "heritage" you wish to honor, go right ahead.
Me, I think the argument over the flag is a stupid issue. All that time, energy, passion and money wasted on a symbol, when we could direct that time, energy, passion and money towards more important things, such as literacy, better jobs, health care for every American and a better standard of living for everyone - not just those who can afford to buy their local representative - we can make this country the non-stop rock 'n' roll party it should be. Mississippi recently held a statewide vote over whether or not to get rid of the Stars & Bars; it failed - and amusingly enough, voting fell along economic and social lines rather than racial lines - but I wonder...there's spots in the Mississippi Delta where one could drive 100 miles in any direction and not see a doctor. Maybe that's what we should get all hot and bothered about, or am I just a silly idealist?
But people will continue to fight for the flag and hold onto antiquated ideals because that's what people do. Southerners in particular, mainly because we're a prickly bunch and HATE being told what to do. Me, I say leave it up or take it down, it doesn't really matter in the long run. It's just a symbol; a symbol of hate and the power of one group over another, true, but a symbol nevertheless. People who fight for symbols - and I'm including any and all symbols here - are only superceded in stupidity by those who would kill and die for those symbols. And as far as any and all wars go, just remember to look at who's telling you to fight and die for whatever reason and where they sit when the blood starts to pour.
Take care,
Matt
-
Backslider
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Athens, GA
- Contact:
And for the record, I've been reading and thoroughly enjoying FAANS! for about six months now and lurking on these boards for about half that. That was my first post - this is my second - and I have also enjoyed the toing and froing y'all do here. Some sharp cookies it seems. As for my geek creditentials, I'm a reformed comic book geek (ex-Marvel Zombie, they lost me a year or so after Inferno), Dr. Who fan, Douglas Adams worshiper and non-partisan Star Wars/Star Trek fan. I don't read much sci-fi/fantasy these days - though a friend recently turned me onto Terry Pratchett - mostly history and socio-political stuff. I do have a special place in my heart for Star Trek, if only for the possible future it portrays where mankind stop fighting and dying over stupid stuff like greed, religion and national borders and truly evolve.
Take care,
Matt
Take care,
Matt
Amen, Matt. I agree with most (if not all) of what you say. Hey, I went to Tupelo High, and did a couple of years at ICC.
I did some scrounging around and come up with some links (and comments) that some of y'all might find informative. If not, well... sorry. Don't mean to spam.
(and I love FAANS, too.)
*paste*
South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reaso ... thCarolina
(They are correct in that slavery was part of the Constitution when it was written, and they were owning up to their part of the bargain (the 3/5ths Compromise), but the northern States weren't fulfilling their responsibilities under the Constitution. Per the precedent set by the American Revolutionary War, they declared their independance.)
Mississippi's
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reaso ... ississippi
(Eeeegad. And this is my home state. Racist, and doesn't explain as well as SC's declaration did.)
Georgia
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Georgia
(Georgia's declaration goes into some of the political and economic reasons behind her secession. Good reading, but long.)
Texas
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Texas
(Horrifying how reasonable and sane they sound, defending slavery? But remember, as the law of the land stated, what they were doing was perfectly legal, but the other states were flat out refusing to follow the Constitution.)
To which their northern sister States resolved...
Indiana
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/indiana.html
(Hrm... perhaps we had better think this whole thing over. We're sending some delegates to hash this out in an effort to help matters.)
Maine
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/maine.html
(Those treasonous curs! How dare they rebel! The majority has spoken! We will be quite happy to support a war to bring them back in line!)
Minnesota
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/gopher.html
(Majority rules! You can't leave the Union, because it affects everybody else! We also support a war with men and money!)
New Jersey
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/jersey.html
(Now, now. No matter how right the Federal Government may be, we should try to work this out peacefully. There are some compromise measures out there, and we'd be willing to entertain them. Perhaps we need an Amendment?)
New York
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/newyork.html
(Treason! Insurgency! We'll do whatever we can to put down the Rebellion!)
Ohio
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ohio.html
(The Constitution should be strictly upheld. We do not want to meddle with other States, but nor should they meddle with us. We will support the civil authorities in accordance with the Constitution.
Pennsylvania
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/penn.html
(If they want slavery, fine. But we will not tolerate rebellion!)
What the President had to say about the whole crisis...
House Divided Speech (pre crisis, actually)
http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm
(The country is going to wind up all one way, or all the other. If allowed, slaveholders would make all the new states being created out of the Territories into slave states. Per teh Dred Scott decision, they could take their slaves and bring them into non-slave states without fear of losing them, thus making ALL states "slave states." This is a Bad Thing. It's also very tough reading).
A letter to Alex Stephans
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/aleck.html
(Lincoln asks if southerners really think he's going to take away their slaves, and says he's not going to do any such thing.)
Lincoln's first Inaugural address (given a few months after the States started to secede)
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt039.html
(I didn't read through this one)
Second Inagural
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/nat ... inau2.html
(Much shorter)
What about those peace conferences adn other get togethers to help avert disaster? Not everybody wanted to participate... on BOTH sides.
A nice timeline of the crisis
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/secesh.html
Somebody asked me about "what disadvantageous laws?"
From http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html
"As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833." (That, and slavery (legal!) was *critical* to the economy of the region.)
Hopefully this can get some folks started. Personally, I think the south was right "legally", but not "right." A war was prolly not the best way to decide this issue, but a war was what we got, and ultimately, the right thing was done.
Whew! Lesson over!
Loxley
I did some scrounging around and come up with some links (and comments) that some of y'all might find informative. If not, well... sorry. Don't mean to spam.
(and I love FAANS, too.)
*paste*
South Carolina's Declaration of Secession.
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reaso ... thCarolina
(They are correct in that slavery was part of the Constitution when it was written, and they were owning up to their part of the bargain (the 3/5ths Compromise), but the northern States weren't fulfilling their responsibilities under the Constitution. Per the precedent set by the American Revolutionary War, they declared their independance.)
Mississippi's
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reaso ... ississippi
(Eeeegad. And this is my home state. Racist, and doesn't explain as well as SC's declaration did.)
Georgia
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Georgia
(Georgia's declaration goes into some of the political and economic reasons behind her secession. Good reading, but long.)
Texas
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#Texas
(Horrifying how reasonable and sane they sound, defending slavery? But remember, as the law of the land stated, what they were doing was perfectly legal, but the other states were flat out refusing to follow the Constitution.)
To which their northern sister States resolved...
Indiana
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/indiana.html
(Hrm... perhaps we had better think this whole thing over. We're sending some delegates to hash this out in an effort to help matters.)
Maine
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/maine.html
(Those treasonous curs! How dare they rebel! The majority has spoken! We will be quite happy to support a war to bring them back in line!)
Minnesota
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/gopher.html
(Majority rules! You can't leave the Union, because it affects everybody else! We also support a war with men and money!)
New Jersey
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/jersey.html
(Now, now. No matter how right the Federal Government may be, we should try to work this out peacefully. There are some compromise measures out there, and we'd be willing to entertain them. Perhaps we need an Amendment?)
New York
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/newyork.html
(Treason! Insurgency! We'll do whatever we can to put down the Rebellion!)
Ohio
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/ohio.html
(The Constitution should be strictly upheld. We do not want to meddle with other States, but nor should they meddle with us. We will support the civil authorities in accordance with the Constitution.
Pennsylvania
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/penn.html
(If they want slavery, fine. But we will not tolerate rebellion!)
What the President had to say about the whole crisis...
House Divided Speech (pre crisis, actually)
http://www.historyplace.com/lincoln/divided.htm
(The country is going to wind up all one way, or all the other. If allowed, slaveholders would make all the new states being created out of the Territories into slave states. Per teh Dred Scott decision, they could take their slaves and bring them into non-slave states without fear of losing them, thus making ALL states "slave states." This is a Bad Thing. It's also very tough reading).
A letter to Alex Stephans
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/aleck.html
(Lincoln asks if southerners really think he's going to take away their slaves, and says he's not going to do any such thing.)
Lincoln's first Inaugural address (given a few months after the States started to secede)
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/trt039.html
(I didn't read through this one)
Second Inagural
http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/nat ... inau2.html
(Much shorter)
What about those peace conferences adn other get togethers to help avert disaster? Not everybody wanted to participate... on BOTH sides.
A nice timeline of the crisis
http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/secesh.html
Somebody asked me about "what disadvantageous laws?"
From http://ngeorgia.com/history/why.html
"As industry in the North expanded it looked towards southern markets, rich with cash from the lucrative agricultural business, to buy the North's manufactured goods. However, it was often cheaper for the South to purchase the goods abroad. In order to "protect" the northern industries Jackson slapped a tariff on many of the imported goods that could be manufactured in the North. When South Carolina passed the Ordinance of Nullification in November 1832, refusing to collect the tariff and threatening to withdraw from the Union, Jackson ordered federal troops to Charleston. A secession crisis was averted when Congress revised the Tariff of Abominations in February 1833." (That, and slavery (legal!) was *critical* to the economy of the region.)
Hopefully this can get some folks started. Personally, I think the south was right "legally", but not "right." A war was prolly not the best way to decide this issue, but a war was what we got, and ultimately, the right thing was done.
Whew! Lesson over!
Loxley
I was on holiday in some of the Southern States (Florida, Georgia, S. Carolina) a couple of weeks ago, and saw Gone With The Wind when I got back to the UK. 
Coincidence? 
I'm a little confused, however - first the General tried to influence the Fans! reality by killing Rikk (and possibly some of the others, or even just others if Rikk was just a ploy to provoke and kill Rumy), now she's going to change the result of the American Civil War. Is that going to happen in another reality?
:thinks:
Oh...wait...it'll create a new one. So all her changes actually take place in the alpha reality?
Coincidence? I'm a little confused, however - first the General tried to influence the Fans! reality by killing Rikk (and possibly some of the others, or even just others if Rikk was just a ploy to provoke and kill Rumy), now she's going to change the result of the American Civil War. Is that going to happen in another reality?
:thinks:
Oh...wait...it'll create a new one. So all her changes actually take place in the alpha reality?
-
T Campbell
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA, USA
- Contact:
-
Lordjulius
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Palnu
- Contact:
Me too (mine, not yours)Backslider wrote:
Sorry for the length of this, but...
On the other hand, there were laws that were patently advantageous to the South, such as the Fugitive Slave Law, that not only allowed slaves who had run away to free states to be returned (its original intent) but in fact given the lack of documentation of most poor free blacks often led to raids by bounty hunters seeking escaped slaves on black areas near borders of slave states, rounding up black folks until they had enough to match the number of escaped slaves they were looking for, and if the people rounded up couldn't prove they weren't slaves, poof!, they were. The last few years before the War, they couldn't even go to court to prove they weren't slaves, because they had no rights.I don't know his mind, but I'm assuming he's referring to a few import/export laws and tariffs that would've/were hurting the South's cotton-based economy but were advantageous to the industrial North.(Someone):
As for laws disadvantageous to the south, to what laws are you referring?
That's right. "Free" blacks had no rights. What am I talking about? I'm talking about the Dred Scott decision. Officially, the decision was in a case over whether a slave owner could take a slave with him into a free state, live with this person as a paid servant for a decade, then move back to a slave state, taking the servant along as a slave. The court decided he had not been "free" during those years, even though he was paid and living in a state that didn't allow slavery. He had always been a slave.
But that was not all. Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, a slave owner himself, wrote that "the negro . . . had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." According to this decision, rendered in 1856, even free blacks living in non-slave states were not citizens of the United States, and had none of the rights of citizens, including redress of the courts. They had no rights at all. They were, essentially, slaves that didn't happen to belong to anybody.
I could go on, but this should do to show that not all the laws at the time of the Great Rebellion (my own favorite alternate term for the Civil War) favored the North.
Cynical as I am, I still think this is wrong. For one thing, we happily returned to killing the indigenous population almost as soon as the Civil War ended, so it obviously hadn't lost its appeal. I don't think you can reduce the Civil War to man's natural lust for violence -- though that certainly played its part.That's part of the reason behind the Civil War, but the main part is that Americans, being the bloodthirsty critters that we are, hadn't had a good war in a few years and were itching to kill somebody. Wiping out the indigenous population just didn't have the oomph it once did.
I'm snipping your personal background to provide a bit of mine. I grew up in one of the few states where slavery was untouched by the Emancipation Proclamation. Missouri was a slave state that remained loyal to the Union (well, except for the legislators elected in 1860, most of whom ended up in the exile government that operated out of Arkansas and insisted they were the "true" government of Missouri). St. Louis, where I was born and now live, was fairly solidly Union. I spent most of my growth years in the rural southeast of the state, however, where there were many rebel sympathizers then and were many racist yahoos when I was young (and probably still are now). I remember being told about (by someone who was actually present) a conversation where grown men were actually discussing the possibility of "stringing up" a local high school athlete who happened to be black for having the temerity to date a local doctor's daughter (the doctor didn't mind at all, nor did most of us kids -- things are getting better, slowly).
There are a few people who collect Civil War memorabilia or display the Confederate Battle Flag for whom it is a matter of heritage and history. They represent perhaps 1% of the people who do so. I have, in fact, met only one in my life I would not say was deeply racist.
Oh, please. Not only is the history of the labor movement in the country taught in history books, but the fact is that conditions in Europe were sufficiently worse that those immigrants CHOSE to come here to endure the misery you cite; the slaves had no choice in the matter.Of course, history books never talk about how bad the North treated its working class, particularly immigrants, during this time, nicely glossing over labor riots, unsafe working conditions in factories and conscription when telling us how evil and dastardly all those Southern slave owners were.
I'm sorry, but this is just untrue. It's a popular notion these days, and it's true that the version of the War to Free the Slaves I was taught in grade school was overly simplistic (although I can tell you from looking at my daughter's textbooks that they're doing better now), but the fact is that the war was, in fact, primarily about freeing the slaves.The Civil War was only nominally about slavery and freeing the slaves.
The Republican party was first and foremost a party built around Abolition. That was their unifying factor, the cause they rallied around, the only thing some of the disparate members all agreed on.
In the words of the Grolier Encyclopedia, it was "organized in 1854 to oppose the extension of slavery into the territories."
That was why the Republican Party existed. In the 1860 election, this six-year-old 3rd party swept Lincoln into the White House for a variety of complicated reasons, including the fact that the 2nd party, the Whigs, was dying, and the Democrats had themselves split -- largely, but not entirely over the slavery issue -- into Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats with two separate Presidential Candidates. But make no mistake about it. People who voted for Lincoln were, by and large, opposed to slavery, and his unexpected election shocked the South into rebellion.
The Southern reaction to his election was to assume that he would try to end slavery, and soon. Ironically, Lincoln was in fact a believer in gradual and evolutionary measures, and would have tried to phase out slavery over time, probably. He didn't want to see the country split over the problem.
But the slave owners who controlled the machinery of government in most Southern states didn't wait to see what Lincoln would do. The seceded, and rebelled. Immediately.
Not because of tarriffs that had been in place for years. Because of Lincoln's election. Because they wanted to defend their "peculiar institution" (and that's their word for it!) and their way of life, and they were certain that his election doomed it.
This is nonsense. See above. The Republican party would not have existed if Abolition had not been a passionate ideal held by a lot of people. A minority of people, yes -- in many ways Lincoln's Republicans were a fourth party, rather than a third (with the two Democrat parties 1st and 2nd and the dying Whigs 3rd), and his election can be seen as a fluke. But they were a very sizable minority who were very passionate. Think of the anti-drinkers who were to force through Prohibition a few decades later. Or today's abortion foes. It was not just "a few souls."Only a few souls, such as Horace Greeley, gave a damn about the slaves one way or another.
This is quite possible, but only emphasizes the point that people at the time saw the war as, in fact, being about slavery, and were mad at the black people they saw around them as being in an abstract way the cause of the misery they felt themselves to be in.In fact, during the dark days of the war, when the tide was in the South's favor, the most dangerous place a black man could be was in New York City or Boston.
Umm, not sure you're right about New Orleans (I'm pretty sure it said "the states" and I thought Louisiana was in the Confederacy), but on the other hand you left out the entire state of Missouri, so we'll call it even. Sure, the Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda tool. Its ostensible intent was to scare the rebellious states into abandoning the war. "Give up and we'll let you keep your slaves, at least for now; keep fighting and we declare them all to be free." Nobody expected it to work. The real power of it was the hope that its dissemination throughout the south would cause slave rebellions that would essential give the South a two-front war. It was less successful on this count than had been hoped, and few slaves were freed by the E.P. until Sherman marched through.The Emancipation Proclamation was a propaganda tool; hell, it only freed slaves in Confederate areas - a place where it can be argued the Federal government had no say - and didn't touch those in bondage in Union territory like Maryland, New Orleans or Eastern Tennessee.
I also clipped the flag discussion; I agree with it wholeheartedly. The "Confederate flag," as most people incorrectly think of it, was resurrected purely and totally by foes of civil rights. Even the 1890 Mississippi decision was connected to one of the many rises of the Klan.
I don't know. Symbols stand for ideas, after all. Are you willing to die for, let's say, the American ideals of freedom and democracy? Does the American flag stand for those ideals or not?People who fight for symbols - and I'm including any and all symbols here - are only superceded in stupidity by those who would kill and die for those symbols. And as far as any and all wars go, just remember to look at who's telling you to fight and die for whatever reason and where they sit when the blood starts to pour. Take care, Matt
I used to believe the way you do about things like flags. Symbols. More often than not, empty ones. I used to refuse to stand to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school, and in fact there were enough of us who did that the school quit saying it in the mornings rather than have the spectacle of kids sitting in their seats or being sent to the Principal every day. I said the words were meaningless, that this country was founded on slavery and existed on injustice and was fighting a war for rubber and oil (the rubber dates me -- it was Vietnam, not the Gulf, and my ideas were a lot more common than those who bravely stood up to the mindless patriotism of the Gulf War days, much less the jingoism that has infected us since 9/11).
But while I still decry mindless patriotism, I no longer think all patriotism is mindless. I realize that the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Declaration of Independence, and all those other symbols of what America is supposed to stand for, are promises of the future, not statements about the present or past, and they are promises that can only be redeemed if we make them happen. And yes, sometimes those symbols are worth fighting for, because the ideas they stand for are worth fighting for, and even if the symbols stand for them imperfectly, even if the ideals don't exist anywhere except on paper and in people's minds, they are still real, and are still worth fighting for.
One final note. Someone else said that slavery was "vital" to the economy of the South. This is only sort of true, and the extent to which is is true was largely created by the Southern aristocracy's insistence on making it true.
The fact is, industrialization and civil rights were the wave of the future, and all agricultural slave economies were doomed, even those that didn't depend on racial injustice (Russia freed the serfs a decade or so after the Civil War, for instance). It was a matter of time. By the 1820s, it was clear to most even in the South that slavery would eventually have to go, and from that point on you essentially have a small -- but very rich and powerful -- minority warping the entire region away from progress trying to presever an 18th Century way of life for themselves and their heirs. It was doomed to failure, even without the war.
You're probably going to tell me that slavery exists today. It does, but there is no place where large scale slavery exists as a dominant part of the economy. The closest is probably Bangkok, where the sex industry employs hundreds of slaves and virtual slaves, and is at least a major force, if not a key component, of the economy. But really, slavery exists in tiny backwaters, in eddys and tidepools. It is not yet exterminated, but it has not been a major economic force anywhere since the 1890s.
Wow. I knew this was going to be long, but it's much longer than I intended. Sorry, all.
_________________
Lord Julius
Grandlord of Palnu
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Edits: first two trying to fix a quote problem, third correcting a couple of typos I should have caught before I sent it (and fourth, I found yet another one: "in fract" *sigh* -- if there are any more, they're staying).
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lordjulius on 2002-04-17 08:38 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lordjulius on 2002-04-17 08:39 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lordjulius on 2002-04-17 09:16 ]</font>
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lordjulius on 2002-04-17 09:19 ]</font>
-
T Campbell
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Virginia Beach, VA, USA
- Contact:
Just to clear this up for the benefit of anyone who's confused: a lot of Backslider's stuff that Lord Julius quotes above (about the propagandistic nature of the Proclamation) is followed by:
For what it's worth, my family may be among that one percent that treats the Stars and Bars as history and heritage. My mother's family is Carolinian, and my father's has deep roots in Mississippi. However, we don't exactly display it on our front lawn or our license plates.
I'm sure there's a historian out there somewhere who feels badly about the way the once-noble symbol of the swastika has been dragged through the mud, but he has nothing in common with the street tough who tattoos it on his forehead.
I'm pretty sure this means Backslider doesn't endorse it himself... though I would have liked to see quotation marks separating what he did believe from what he didn't.That's one of the big lies we're taught in school concerning the Civil War and its repercussions...
For what it's worth, my family may be among that one percent that treats the Stars and Bars as history and heritage. My mother's family is Carolinian, and my father's has deep roots in Mississippi. However, we don't exactly display it on our front lawn or our license plates.
I'm sure there's a historian out there somewhere who feels badly about the way the once-noble symbol of the swastika has been dragged through the mud, but he has nothing in common with the street tough who tattoos it on his forehead.
-
KingLeon
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 221
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Tropical-Heat Buffalo
- Contact:
True... I remember reading an annotated "Ivanhoe", and there was a lengthy history on the symbol in one of the footnotes...
Um... Yeah...
I wonder if there isn't a point where history fades to a point of... of... un-readable-ness. I mean... Remember 9/11? Wasn't there a rumor the AP reported that a car bomb blew up the State Department? How many people will remember that fifty years from now? Will kids then be able to analyze how the nation felt about the war in Afganistan? How the Anthrax attacks scared us? No... the TEMPO, the PACE is important, and almost impossible to reflect in mere readings. True, in a digital world, events happen faster, thus making future histories even tougher. All I know is that war back then was like an iceberg... even though the pace was increasing with railroads and telegraphs (or was that later?), the pace of events was slow. Information got distorted. Imagine yourself a factory worker, being told about the war. Or a farmer. Two viewpoints that get twisted up, then like two huge icebergs smacking into one another, war happens. Hostilities as old as the country flared, terrorists from one side (heh... terrorists...), injustice from the other... and BOOM.
That's how I see it. None of us, no matter how much evidence we look at, will be able to understand that war. Maybe the war journals give the best insight...
Ugh. Rambled.
Um... Yeah...
I wonder if there isn't a point where history fades to a point of... of... un-readable-ness. I mean... Remember 9/11? Wasn't there a rumor the AP reported that a car bomb blew up the State Department? How many people will remember that fifty years from now? Will kids then be able to analyze how the nation felt about the war in Afganistan? How the Anthrax attacks scared us? No... the TEMPO, the PACE is important, and almost impossible to reflect in mere readings. True, in a digital world, events happen faster, thus making future histories even tougher. All I know is that war back then was like an iceberg... even though the pace was increasing with railroads and telegraphs (or was that later?), the pace of events was slow. Information got distorted. Imagine yourself a factory worker, being told about the war. Or a farmer. Two viewpoints that get twisted up, then like two huge icebergs smacking into one another, war happens. Hostilities as old as the country flared, terrorists from one side (heh... terrorists...), injustice from the other... and BOOM.
That's how I see it. None of us, no matter how much evidence we look at, will be able to understand that war. Maybe the war journals give the best insight...
Ugh. Rambled.
-
Backslider
- Newbie
- Posts: 9
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Athens, GA
- Contact:
I'm gonna clip a great deal here to try to answer all three of y'all...been at work all day, you know how it is.
First off, T's right, by no means do I wish to defend either the institution of slavery or the "lost glory of the old South" or any of that neo-Confederate flapdoodle. My post should've included the quotation marks, I reckon, to get some of my points across. As for what I believe or don't believe, that's more or less irrelevant. I've studied the Civil War, Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement and all the various aspects of what my friend Patterson Hood (of the great Athens band The Drive-By Truckers, plug plug) calls "the Southern thang" at great length. I've read both sides of the issue, and in a nutshell, the "peculiar institution" is in my opinion an American - white American specifically - shame on the whole, but one the South has to and SHOULD bear the bulk of the blame. It's not something we should dwell on nor continually punish ourselves over, but we should never forget it either.
Lord Julius, you are absolutely correct in your argument concerning the Dredd Scott case and I glossed over such attempts by the federal government to keep the South happy, which is my failing. I freely admit that, but I wasn't trying to answer that question. I should have mentioned it, however. The U.S. government bent over backwards to keep the landed aristocracy happy and out of war, but it seems the Southern elite were bound and determined to fight. For all my reading and studying, I really can't figure out why except perhaps there was something in the air about the "glory of war" - obviously from guys who'd never seen someone guts spill out from a Springfield rifle bullet - or they felt their hold on the U.S. slipping away. Perhaps they intended to bloody the noses of the new powers, your robber barons and industrialists like Vanderbilt and Carnegie and whatnot.
As far as the whole class-labor issue, sure the immigrants had it worse in their home country and came to America for a better life; my Old Man's people came over from Ireland during the Potato Famine, for example. Still, the immigrants got the short end of the stick as far as working conditions and wages go in the industrialized North. Granted, they were better off than the slaves, but only nominally compared to the upper classes. The Horatio Alger myth of "rags to riches" didn't happen for most free whites, either, and you had two choices: work under The Man's terms...or starve.
I could go into the whole issue of indentured servitude and how some have argued they had it worse than slaves (you treat rental car worse than you treat your own property, is the five-cent argument). Plus, there's the class warfare concept, which says the elite - be they slave owner or robber baron - structured society in such a manner that the various lower classes - slaves, sharecroppers, free blacks and lower class whites - fought against each other for the small slice of the pie they were allowed rather than organize for the benefit of all. But I won't, because we're waaaay off topic as it is. I will say, though, it was common practice in the 18th century to kidnap vagabonds and lower classes in England for labor in America, and leave it at that. We could go back and forth on this issue, arguing who was worse and who was right, until doomsday and never get anywhere.
As for New Orleans not being covered by the Emancipation Proclamation, it's a fact. By the time it was issued, the North held New Orleans under the auspices of Gen. Ben Butler, one of the true bastards of the Civil War, North or South, though not as bad as Forrest by a long shot. Unfortunately, I'm at a disadvantage for documentation, as all my books concerning the period are now in the hands of my young cousin for her high school term paper. Again, the Proclamation was a piece of war propaganda, no matter how noble. Frankly, I don't think the federal government ever really meant to put any weight behind any sort of civil rights decisions until men like Dr. King forced the issue in the '60s. I've always thought it telling it took damn near a century for the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to mean a damn. As far as your argument concerning the early intentions of the Republican Party, I'll have to do some more research - it's been a while since this topic has held my attention, despite the recent hullabaloo concerning the flag - but I do think it's interesting that Lincoln was very, VERY pro-labor...almost socialist in some of his speeches and writings. And just look what the GOP has turned into today...but I digress.
As far as history books go, the labor movement is - or was when I was in school 10 years ago at least - glossed over and given the barest mention. It was like all of the sudden we had 40-hour work weeks and safety regulations only through the benevolence of the kindly industrialist. When I got to college and learned about Joe Hill, Emma Goldman, The Ludlow Massacre, and The Wobblies, I was shocked, not only that people went through what they did just so I could have minimum wage, but that I was never taught this in high school. I don't want to get into a rant about unions, but I do think it's disgraceful the movement has strayed so far from its roots. Granted, I grew up and was educated in the South - and Mississippi has one of the worst education systems in the country, consistently in the bottom five - so maybe I was just missing out on the right textbooks. The union movement never took hold here like it did in the industrialized North, which is partly why so many factories and plants are building in small Alabama and Mississippi towns. Add to that the grand tradition of the "good ol' boy network" in small-town Southern politics, and you got some awful happy C.E.O.'s. But again, I digress...
And, yes, slavery does exist today - from what I understand, it's The Sudan that's the biggest violator of this - but you are right in that nowhere does it play such a huge roll in a country's economy. And, of course, industrialization and civil rights were inevitability; I never said they weren't nor was it my intent to imply such. I apologize if I come across as such. I often wonder how things would have worked out had the Civil War never been fought; namely, would we have the issues of racism that we have today? I've read Turtledove myself, and it's a question no Alternative History writer has ever sufficiently been able to answer.
As far as memorabilia goes, I've never understood why ANYONE collects anything just to look at it. I have thousands of CD's and books, but I can listen to and read them, respectively. They have a function, but who am I to judge what gets people through the day. Some folks think my extensive collection of Hunter Thompson books and Willie Nelson albums is a bit silly. But there's a difference between an interested collector - or, in my case, an interested student of history - and a nitwit fighting a lost battle. Few years back, I had the rare privilege of interviewing Lemmy from Motorhead, an enthusiastic collector of German war memorabilia. Going back to what T said about how the swastika's been perverted by Hitler and Nazism, I can assure you Lemmy's interest is academic. Just an example; but then again, I got a neighbor who's car is covered with "Free The South" and "Secession Now" bumper stickers.
And I do hope things are getting better as far as race relations go - and I also hope that one day blacks, whites and all colors join together in the more pressing class struggle - but sometimes I'm disheartened. My first cousin married a black dude a few years back and has two adorable children, and it breaks my heart how many friends and even family members won't even acknowledge her existence these days.
Finally...and again, sorry for the wordiness; I'm from Mississippi, it's the Faulkner thing. The matter of ideals and symbols. I stand by what I say. I will not pledge allegiance to a flag, any flag, but I will fight for what that flag represents. Someone can burn the Stars & Stripes, but Freedom of Speech still exists in the ashes...and that's what it's all about. I despise blind patriotism as well. In my eyes, true patriotism is calling our leaders when you disagree with their policies, despite partisan politics. I don't agree with Bush's "war on terrorism" no more than I agreed with Clinton's draconian drug laws or his spineless toadying to multinational corporations. I don't think it makes me less a patriot or means I love this country any less. This is my home and it's my responsibility to make it the best place possible for everyone. To be honest, that sentiment goes for the whole world; I just have to help clean up my own backyard first.
Once again, I apologize for the length of this post. Again, I must stress that I do not in any way wish to "explain away" the South's torrid history, I just wish to give a different insight. Elvis bless modern technology.
Take care,
Matt
First off, T's right, by no means do I wish to defend either the institution of slavery or the "lost glory of the old South" or any of that neo-Confederate flapdoodle. My post should've included the quotation marks, I reckon, to get some of my points across. As for what I believe or don't believe, that's more or less irrelevant. I've studied the Civil War, Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement and all the various aspects of what my friend Patterson Hood (of the great Athens band The Drive-By Truckers, plug plug) calls "the Southern thang" at great length. I've read both sides of the issue, and in a nutshell, the "peculiar institution" is in my opinion an American - white American specifically - shame on the whole, but one the South has to and SHOULD bear the bulk of the blame. It's not something we should dwell on nor continually punish ourselves over, but we should never forget it either.
Lord Julius, you are absolutely correct in your argument concerning the Dredd Scott case and I glossed over such attempts by the federal government to keep the South happy, which is my failing. I freely admit that, but I wasn't trying to answer that question. I should have mentioned it, however. The U.S. government bent over backwards to keep the landed aristocracy happy and out of war, but it seems the Southern elite were bound and determined to fight. For all my reading and studying, I really can't figure out why except perhaps there was something in the air about the "glory of war" - obviously from guys who'd never seen someone guts spill out from a Springfield rifle bullet - or they felt their hold on the U.S. slipping away. Perhaps they intended to bloody the noses of the new powers, your robber barons and industrialists like Vanderbilt and Carnegie and whatnot.
As far as the whole class-labor issue, sure the immigrants had it worse in their home country and came to America for a better life; my Old Man's people came over from Ireland during the Potato Famine, for example. Still, the immigrants got the short end of the stick as far as working conditions and wages go in the industrialized North. Granted, they were better off than the slaves, but only nominally compared to the upper classes. The Horatio Alger myth of "rags to riches" didn't happen for most free whites, either, and you had two choices: work under The Man's terms...or starve.
I could go into the whole issue of indentured servitude and how some have argued they had it worse than slaves (you treat rental car worse than you treat your own property, is the five-cent argument). Plus, there's the class warfare concept, which says the elite - be they slave owner or robber baron - structured society in such a manner that the various lower classes - slaves, sharecroppers, free blacks and lower class whites - fought against each other for the small slice of the pie they were allowed rather than organize for the benefit of all. But I won't, because we're waaaay off topic as it is. I will say, though, it was common practice in the 18th century to kidnap vagabonds and lower classes in England for labor in America, and leave it at that. We could go back and forth on this issue, arguing who was worse and who was right, until doomsday and never get anywhere.
As for New Orleans not being covered by the Emancipation Proclamation, it's a fact. By the time it was issued, the North held New Orleans under the auspices of Gen. Ben Butler, one of the true bastards of the Civil War, North or South, though not as bad as Forrest by a long shot. Unfortunately, I'm at a disadvantage for documentation, as all my books concerning the period are now in the hands of my young cousin for her high school term paper. Again, the Proclamation was a piece of war propaganda, no matter how noble. Frankly, I don't think the federal government ever really meant to put any weight behind any sort of civil rights decisions until men like Dr. King forced the issue in the '60s. I've always thought it telling it took damn near a century for the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to mean a damn. As far as your argument concerning the early intentions of the Republican Party, I'll have to do some more research - it's been a while since this topic has held my attention, despite the recent hullabaloo concerning the flag - but I do think it's interesting that Lincoln was very, VERY pro-labor...almost socialist in some of his speeches and writings. And just look what the GOP has turned into today...but I digress.
As far as history books go, the labor movement is - or was when I was in school 10 years ago at least - glossed over and given the barest mention. It was like all of the sudden we had 40-hour work weeks and safety regulations only through the benevolence of the kindly industrialist. When I got to college and learned about Joe Hill, Emma Goldman, The Ludlow Massacre, and The Wobblies, I was shocked, not only that people went through what they did just so I could have minimum wage, but that I was never taught this in high school. I don't want to get into a rant about unions, but I do think it's disgraceful the movement has strayed so far from its roots. Granted, I grew up and was educated in the South - and Mississippi has one of the worst education systems in the country, consistently in the bottom five - so maybe I was just missing out on the right textbooks. The union movement never took hold here like it did in the industrialized North, which is partly why so many factories and plants are building in small Alabama and Mississippi towns. Add to that the grand tradition of the "good ol' boy network" in small-town Southern politics, and you got some awful happy C.E.O.'s. But again, I digress...
And, yes, slavery does exist today - from what I understand, it's The Sudan that's the biggest violator of this - but you are right in that nowhere does it play such a huge roll in a country's economy. And, of course, industrialization and civil rights were inevitability; I never said they weren't nor was it my intent to imply such. I apologize if I come across as such. I often wonder how things would have worked out had the Civil War never been fought; namely, would we have the issues of racism that we have today? I've read Turtledove myself, and it's a question no Alternative History writer has ever sufficiently been able to answer.
As far as memorabilia goes, I've never understood why ANYONE collects anything just to look at it. I have thousands of CD's and books, but I can listen to and read them, respectively. They have a function, but who am I to judge what gets people through the day. Some folks think my extensive collection of Hunter Thompson books and Willie Nelson albums is a bit silly. But there's a difference between an interested collector - or, in my case, an interested student of history - and a nitwit fighting a lost battle. Few years back, I had the rare privilege of interviewing Lemmy from Motorhead, an enthusiastic collector of German war memorabilia. Going back to what T said about how the swastika's been perverted by Hitler and Nazism, I can assure you Lemmy's interest is academic. Just an example; but then again, I got a neighbor who's car is covered with "Free The South" and "Secession Now" bumper stickers.
And I do hope things are getting better as far as race relations go - and I also hope that one day blacks, whites and all colors join together in the more pressing class struggle - but sometimes I'm disheartened. My first cousin married a black dude a few years back and has two adorable children, and it breaks my heart how many friends and even family members won't even acknowledge her existence these days.
Finally...and again, sorry for the wordiness; I'm from Mississippi, it's the Faulkner thing. The matter of ideals and symbols. I stand by what I say. I will not pledge allegiance to a flag, any flag, but I will fight for what that flag represents. Someone can burn the Stars & Stripes, but Freedom of Speech still exists in the ashes...and that's what it's all about. I despise blind patriotism as well. In my eyes, true patriotism is calling our leaders when you disagree with their policies, despite partisan politics. I don't agree with Bush's "war on terrorism" no more than I agreed with Clinton's draconian drug laws or his spineless toadying to multinational corporations. I don't think it makes me less a patriot or means I love this country any less. This is my home and it's my responsibility to make it the best place possible for everyone. To be honest, that sentiment goes for the whole world; I just have to help clean up my own backyard first.
Once again, I apologize for the length of this post. Again, I must stress that I do not in any way wish to "explain away" the South's torrid history, I just wish to give a different insight. Elvis bless modern technology.
Take care,
Matt
-
Maccabee
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth, VA, United States
I suppose I should also apologize for a long post.
The tariff issue was, to put it bluntly, a lie. A majority of southern states supported pro-tariff presidential candidates in 1840 and 1848. Louisiana sugar planters were every bit as pro-tariff as Pennsylvania ironmongers. After Andrew Jackson left office, the future CS state of Tennessee voted for the pro-tariff presidential candidate in every election except 1856. The most strongly anti-tariff section of the country was the midwest, not the south.
By the 1850s most southerners did support the anti-tariff Democrats, but many (like Alexander Stephens and Judah Benjamin) had switched because the Democrats were considered more proslavery than the Whigs.
Furthermore, at the outbreak of the war the tariff was lower than it had been since 1824, and with Democrats firmly in control of the senate there was no chance of an increase.
The south's big complaints were all in regard to the slavery/white supremacy issue. My personal favorite is the South Carolina complaint that some Yankees let black people vote.
Also, by the way, the compromise of 1820 was proposed by southerners, signed into law by a southern president. John Calhoun himself endorsed it. It wasn't until almost 30 years later that he started saying restriction of slavery was unconstitutional.
As for the emancipation proclamation, that wasn't a scam, it was a lawyer's trick. Lincoln couldn't abolish the institution of slavery -- that was beyond his constitutional authority. He could however confiscate property of rebels -- he defined rebels as being in areas with no operating Civil governments loyal to the Union. The Proclamation didn't end slavery, it just freed the slaves in all of 8 states and parts of 2 others. Most slaves had to wait for Union troops to advance, but some (in northern Mississippi and Arkansas and in scattered spots along the coast from North Carolina to Texas) were freed on the day it went into effect. The slaves of Galveston, Texas, enjoyed only a few hours of freedom, as that city fell to a Confederate counterattack the day the proclamation went into effect; but for most slaves freedom, once granted, was permanent.
Lincoln also signed bills into law abolishing slavery in the territories and DC, and another bill offering Federal compensation to any loyal state that would abolish the institution on its own. Though he was restrained by law, realpolitik, and his own innate desire to avoid sudden change, Lincoln's commitment to the antislavery cause was quite genuine. The issue was not "should he get rid of slavery?" but "could he get rid of it?".
Minor notes: Occupied Louisiana and Virginia were excluded from the proclamation, as Unionist governments had been established there. All of Tennessee (including parts still under Confederate control) were exempted because a Unionist government was in place and the Secessionist government had fled the state. The Dred Scott decision was issued in 1857. Taney had been a slaveowner, but manumitted his slaves years before he issued his decision stating that blacks were so inferior and degraded that they had no rights a white man was bound to respect.
Fun facts about the Fugitive Slave Act the south was so upset about not being properly enforced.
1) The accused could not testify on his own behalf. (violates Amendment VI)
2) The accused could be held without an indictment from a grand jury. (violates Amendment V)
3) The accuser didn't have to appear in court and face cross-examination. (violates Amendment VI)
4) The case was decided by a commissioner, not a jury. (violates Amendment VII)
5) The commissioner was paid twice as much to find for the putative slaveowner as for the alleged slave. (violates all rules of decency and common sense)
None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are limited to "citizens."
The tariff issue was, to put it bluntly, a lie. A majority of southern states supported pro-tariff presidential candidates in 1840 and 1848. Louisiana sugar planters were every bit as pro-tariff as Pennsylvania ironmongers. After Andrew Jackson left office, the future CS state of Tennessee voted for the pro-tariff presidential candidate in every election except 1856. The most strongly anti-tariff section of the country was the midwest, not the south.
By the 1850s most southerners did support the anti-tariff Democrats, but many (like Alexander Stephens and Judah Benjamin) had switched because the Democrats were considered more proslavery than the Whigs.
Furthermore, at the outbreak of the war the tariff was lower than it had been since 1824, and with Democrats firmly in control of the senate there was no chance of an increase.
The south's big complaints were all in regard to the slavery/white supremacy issue. My personal favorite is the South Carolina complaint that some Yankees let black people vote.
Also, by the way, the compromise of 1820 was proposed by southerners, signed into law by a southern president. John Calhoun himself endorsed it. It wasn't until almost 30 years later that he started saying restriction of slavery was unconstitutional.
As for the emancipation proclamation, that wasn't a scam, it was a lawyer's trick. Lincoln couldn't abolish the institution of slavery -- that was beyond his constitutional authority. He could however confiscate property of rebels -- he defined rebels as being in areas with no operating Civil governments loyal to the Union. The Proclamation didn't end slavery, it just freed the slaves in all of 8 states and parts of 2 others. Most slaves had to wait for Union troops to advance, but some (in northern Mississippi and Arkansas and in scattered spots along the coast from North Carolina to Texas) were freed on the day it went into effect. The slaves of Galveston, Texas, enjoyed only a few hours of freedom, as that city fell to a Confederate counterattack the day the proclamation went into effect; but for most slaves freedom, once granted, was permanent.
Lincoln also signed bills into law abolishing slavery in the territories and DC, and another bill offering Federal compensation to any loyal state that would abolish the institution on its own. Though he was restrained by law, realpolitik, and his own innate desire to avoid sudden change, Lincoln's commitment to the antislavery cause was quite genuine. The issue was not "should he get rid of slavery?" but "could he get rid of it?".
Minor notes: Occupied Louisiana and Virginia were excluded from the proclamation, as Unionist governments had been established there. All of Tennessee (including parts still under Confederate control) were exempted because a Unionist government was in place and the Secessionist government had fled the state. The Dred Scott decision was issued in 1857. Taney had been a slaveowner, but manumitted his slaves years before he issued his decision stating that blacks were so inferior and degraded that they had no rights a white man was bound to respect.
Fun facts about the Fugitive Slave Act the south was so upset about not being properly enforced.
1) The accused could not testify on his own behalf. (violates Amendment VI)
2) The accused could be held without an indictment from a grand jury. (violates Amendment V)
3) The accuser didn't have to appear in court and face cross-examination. (violates Amendment VI)
4) The case was decided by a commissioner, not a jury. (violates Amendment VII)
5) The commissioner was paid twice as much to find for the putative slaveowner as for the alleged slave. (violates all rules of decency and common sense)
None of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are limited to "citizens."
-
Lordjulius
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Palnu
- Contact:
While of course everything is faster in the digital age, the railroad and the telegraph (which was demonstrated by Samuel Morse with his famous "What hath God wrought?" in 1844, an unassailable fact no matter whether or not you believe he actually invented the darned thing) were two of the reasons why the Civil War is such a fascinating subject for science fiction writers. The other is the rifle, but I'll get to that in a moment.King Leon said:
No... the TEMPO, the PACE is important, and almost impossible to reflect in mere readings. True, in a digital world, events happen faster, thus making future histories even tougher. All I know is that war back then was like an iceberg... even though the pace was increasing with railroads and telegraphs (or was that later?), the pace of events was slow. Information got distorted.
The fact is, while WE might consider the speed of the war as glacial (and actually, I don't think we would), at the time events flew by like lightning, and communication in particular was nearly instantaneous. In the war of 1812, the Battle of New Orleans took place more than a week after the war had ended, because they hadn't heard about it. During the Civil War, daily newspapers carried stories of yesterday's battles. As perceived by the people at the time, everything happened very, very quickly.
Now about the rifle.
Earlier in the century, at Waterloo, Napoleon and Wellington basically marched lines of troops at each other. The defending side would form two lines, one of which would kneel and aim their muskets at the advancing line while the other stood behind. At the first volley of gunfire, two or three men in the advancing line would go down, then the defending men would drop back and reload while the next line prepared to fire.
During the Civil War, a line of infantrymen marching toward a line of riflemen would find themselves mowed down quickly, because the rifles were many times more accurate than anything available 50 or even 20 years before (although it's true that at the beginning of the war some troops still had muskets).
By the end of the war, many of the troops had repeating rifles, which were even deadlier, since reloading the breech was almost (not yet quite) automatic, and of course at the very end (and not very instrumental in the war, but certainly a foreshadowing of things to come), we have the Gatling gun, which prefigures today's automatic weapons.
But even without automatic loading, just the simple addition of rifling to the barrel turned the old muskets into powerful weapons of mass destruction. There were battles early in the war where dozens, scores of men fell on the first volley, simply because the bullet actually went where it was aimed, which soldiers of earlier eras could not count on. And still, because that's what they'd been doing for centuries, they marched on, and lost more men to the second volley, and the third, until a few tattered remnants tried to retreat long before reaching the line they marched toward.
It didn't take too many battles before they stopped that. Forever. No one would ever battle as they had at Waterloo ever again.
So the Civil War was in many ways the first "modern" war -- a war with huge number of casualties from accurate gunfire, communications carried by electricity, and supplies often carried by train. Every facet of the war was dependent on technology, and advancements of technology during the war helped turn the tide of several battles.
So it was a science fictional war, in a way. It was, for its day, "high tech."
We usually think about science fiction as being about the future, but does it have to be? I once was lucky enough to interview Ray Bradbury, which basically consisted of being entertained by him for about an hour, enthralled and delighted. He pointed out that "Singin' in the Rain" is a science-fiction movie. After all, he said, the plot revolves around the effect of a new technology. The fact that it already happened in our real past is, according to him, irrelevant.
In the same sense, even without time travel, without the General and the Professor and the Skiffy club, one could easily write a science fiction story about the Civil War.
Lord Julius
Grandlord of Palnu
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
Grandlord of Palnu
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
-
Lordjulius
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 38
- Joined: Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: Palnu
- Contact:
You seem to be right, but there's something weird about that. The National Archives and Records administration website says it was issued on March 6, 1857. But the Supreme Court Decisions website over at Cornell Law School cites it as an 1856 decision (a bunch of other websites list it the same way). I'd say they were going by when it was filed, but they cite Roe v. Wade as being 1973, and that's when that decision was issued, and I'm almost positive it was filed the year before, so I'm confused.Maccabee wrote:
The Dred Scott decision was issued in 1857.
Anyway, if anybody wants to read some of the most important U.S. Supreme Court decisions, you can find an alphabetical list of them at http://supct.law.cornell.edu:8080/supct/cases/name.htm
I didn't know that about Taney freeing his slaves. I did know he didn't survive the war, and that at least a few legal scholars think he was a fine Chief Justice and it's a damned shame he's remembered only for the Dred Scott decision. But after a quick look at some of his other decisions, I'm not sure I'd agree. He had taken an essentially similar position on the Fugitive Slave Law a few years earlier. And it's hard to read the language in the Scott decision as being anything but deliberately inflammatory.
As Backslider says, some of the Southern aristocracy seemed bound and determined to start a war . . .
_________________
Lord Julius
Grandlord of Palnu
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lordjulius on 2002-04-17 14:07 ]</font>
-
Maccabee
- Regular Poster
- Posts: 683
- Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
- Location: Portsmouth, VA, United States
The court heard the arguments earlier, and chose not to issue a decision in 1856 because of the delicacy of the presidential election. They waited until just after the innauguration.
I'm not keen on Taney myself. He ruled consistently against national power (except when it was excercised against blacks) and his civil rights record was atrocious. As Jackson's Attorney General he wrote an opinion endorsing a North Carolina law imprisoning free black sailors who had comitted no crimes whenever the ships on which they served docked in that state. He also helped Jackson gut the Bank of the United States after Congress passed a law extending its charter. Like or hate the bank, this was executive legislation in action -- a clear violation of separation of powers. On the plus side, he did try to help reign in business a bit early in his bench career.
I'm not keen on Taney myself. He ruled consistently against national power (except when it was excercised against blacks) and his civil rights record was atrocious. As Jackson's Attorney General he wrote an opinion endorsing a North Carolina law imprisoning free black sailors who had comitted no crimes whenever the ships on which they served docked in that state. He also helped Jackson gut the Bank of the United States after Congress passed a law extending its charter. Like or hate the bank, this was executive legislation in action -- a clear violation of separation of powers. On the plus side, he did try to help reign in business a bit early in his bench career.